available light: when available
lit: when called for
heavily lit: no
over lit: not intentional

large format: no, would be sweet though
medium format: no
35mm: yes
holga/junk: no

shoots men: yes
shoots women: strangely mostly
shoots children: no

studio: no
location: yes

portrait: yes
photojournalist: suck at
fashion: no, but would try
beauty: no, but would try
still life: sometimes
fine art: dabbling
advertising: no, but aiming
outdoor: anytime
automotive: no
food: no
interior: no, but aiming for
sports: no
conceptual: no

travel and leisure-e: no but interested
urban: no
gritty: no
nike: no
high production value: no
low production value: yes
slick: no
raw : yes
grainy : no
saturated : no
captured moment: yes, aim for it
americana: no
weird: not really
stark: no
quirky: no
props: no
lyrical: ??
painterly: maybe
high contrast: sometimes, if it fits
naked: semi but working on it
cool: no
off moment: aim for it
awkward: no, but aim for it
muted color: no
crunchy (super sharp): no, don’t like
great casting: no
tight: no
landscape: yes, mainly seascape
action :no
sets: no
real people : prefer
models : rarely, good ones, never
trashy : no
heroin chic : no
vintage :no

gimmicky: no
kitschy: ?
Lord-of-the-Rings-y (overly digitally processed so people look like video game characters): no, don’t like

A great post on the Conscientious blog asking the question – “What makes a great portrait?” The question was sent out to some in the photography community.

In every portrait session I do I learn something new about portraiture. I am not sure if I am “making” a portrait. Sure I am determining lighting, camera angle, camera settings and lens, all things that determine the resulting image and how that image will be interpreted. A portrait with a shallow depth of field will have a different feel that one that is sharp to infinity. So my choice in these factors is a direct statement on my intent. Now the much more difficult and unpredictable variable is the portrait sitter. The person who is having her portrait taken is really the wildcard in the whole equation. Is she in a good mood, a soulful mood, playful, angry, depressed, overjoyed – and if she is anyone of those things is she going to portray the exact opposite when siting before the camera. Is she honest in what she is portraying? Do I, the photographer, care?

If she is happy can/will she portray someone who is sad? If she is sad, can she portray someone who is happy? Of course this happens all the time. Shuffle through the months entertainment magazines and you will see any number of made-up, stylized portraits of celebrities and socialites that may have very little of that celebrity’s true personality. The photographer and team are hired to photograph with a specific look being the result. Selling more magazines, promoting movie/tv show/record/product. This takes us back to the subject of intent. In my eyes, a portrait is a battle of intents, the photographer vs. the sitter. In those magazines I see more the intent of the art director/creative director/publicist/photographer than anything else. So are those really portraits if they are more sales pitches than anything else? It is confusing. I find myself confused even as I write.

Of course we have the cases where the intent of the sitter wins and the photographer does not think it is a good photograph. Perhaps the person being photographed is not conveying any real emotion, feeling, personality – anything that will make a photograph interesting. However it is a portrait. It is capturing an individual in the way they are. But why isn’t it good? Is that what a portrait is supposed to do? Capture someone in the way they are?
I am not quite sure. But I have seen plenty of good portraits. And they all have that “thing”. I think it’s that intangible thing that escapes definition or description. Like some others said in the Conscientious posting, it’s that thing you see when you see it. You don’t quite know why but it touches you somewhere and you say – “that’s fantastic”.

For myself I think a portrait that I like is more a portrait of me than that of the one who was photographed. I think it speaks more to who I am, my likes and dislikes, my mood and personality, my sense of who I am and what is good. It’s like listening to a song when you’re in a certain mood. Or hearing an old song from years past when you were a much different person than you are now. You remember who you were when that song came out. So you liking that song then speaks of who you were then. Conversely how you feel about it now speaks of who you are today.

Editorial and celebrity photographer Dan Winters has provided ten never before published photographs from his personal archives. Truly inspiring work. I think my two favorites would have to Sandra Bullock and his father. The image of his father is striking, biblical if you may.

I love portraiture. I love images that capture a sense of a person. A mood, a feeling. When photographing people I tend to “go in”, focusing on the face and and torso. Not to say I do not do environmental portraiture. I really enjoy it. I take any opportunity I can to do such portraits. As circumstances and opportunities have it, the close-in stuff is what I am doing right now.

Photo is a French photography magazine that I peruse through and sometimes purchase at my local b&n. My French is pretty terrible so I can’t read/understand most of the content. The photographs however: wow. Amazing. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that it usually publishes images that would not normally be published in an American mag.

This issue highlighted a project by the Spanish photographer Isabel Munoz . Isabel is a very talented artist whose work I would best describe as fine art reportage. Her projects range from photographing Capoeira dancers of Brazil to remote tribes of southern Ethiopia. Her images have a strong, intimate detail to them. They contain a richness and presence that is hard to overlook. For this current Photo issue, she photographed members of the Mara Salvatrucha gangs (see cover image).

For more insight into her work read this article from lens culture. On the very bottom of that page is an audio link where she describes her working process.

I was introduced to Timothy Greenfield-Sanders at my local Barns & Noble. During one of my frequent visits to the Art & Photography sections I came across his book of portraiture,Face to Face . I was amazed at the elegant beauty of his images. Unlike so many of his contemporaries his portraits are not overly stylized. His subjects are not doing anything weird or animated. There is the sense that his portraits are more so of his subjects that of himself. To me there is a natural intimacy in his work, the sense that you are looking at an individual, a human being, and not simply a fabrication of publicist, stylist, make-up artist, creative director..and so on.

The portrait above is of Jake Schick, an American soldier injured while serving in Iraq. Timothy photographed 13 soldiers for a HBO documentary – “Alive Day Memories: Home From Iraq”.

“This documentary surveys the physical and emotional cost of war through soldiers’ memories of the day in Iraq when they survived near-fatal wounds. In a war that has left 22,000 wounded, with more than half the injuries too severe to permit a return to active military service, the documentary looks at the advances in military medicine that allow soldiers to return home and celebrate what they call their “alive day.” James Gandolfini conducts interviews in which the soldiers share their feelings on their future, their severe disabilities and their devotion to the country.”